I wasn't a fan of Fast and Furious series.
But I thought the last one, Fast and Furious 5, was very enjoyable. Even if you hadn't seen the earlier episodes. I might have seen one or two of the earlier episodes, but Fast and Furious 5 was really enjoyable: light and entertaining, easy to cheer for the good guys (who were criminals with hearts of gold). Even easy to cheer for the Rock, who was trying to put the heroes down, until he found a criminal who was just plain bad and evil.

Longtime "Fast and the Furious" franchise director Justin Lin has announced that this summer's "Fast & Furious 6" will be his last time behind the wheel of Universal's tentpole series ... simply because he can't keep up with the studio's need for speed.

Lin's departure from the franchise isn't due to bad blood but rather because he's unable to meet the studio's demands for another "Fast" installment to hit theaters as soon as possible. In fact, Universal wants "Fast 7" ready for Summer 2014, just one year after this summer's offering -- in order to make that happen, Lin would've had to prep the seventh film whilst still in post production on the sixth, an endeavor he feels wouldn't have resulted in his best work.

Universal's original plan was to have "Fast 6" and "7" shoot simultaneously, though that direction was scrapped early on in development, possibly due to Vin Diesel's limited availability as he focused on his pet project, "Riddick," opening Sept. 6.

Franchise fatigue might be another reason for Lin's departure. He's directed every "Fast" movie since the third installment, "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" (2006), and the series has pretty much dominated his career ever since. Like any young director, Lin's probably ready to try something that doesn't involve Diesel, Paul Walker and tricked-out ultra-vehicles.

Los Angeles (CNN) -- The last hand in the "two thumbs up" film critic team, Roger Ebert, died Thursday, two days after revealing cancer returned to his body.

Ebert and Gene Siskel co-hosted the iconic review show "Siskel and Ebert At The Movies" until Siskel's death in 1999 after a battle with a brain tumor.

The Chicago Sun-Times, the base of operations for Ebert's syndicated reviews, announced his death at age 70.

"I'll see you at the movies," were the last word's Ebert wrote to his readers. It was published in an essay titled "Leave of Presence" on his blog Tuesday, in which he explained he was planning to slow down and reduce the number of movie reviews he wrote.

"My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers handpicked and greatly admired by me," Ebert wrote. "What's more, I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review."

Ebert had already lost his voice and much of his jaw after battling thyroid and salivary gland cancer.

He suffered a hip fracture in December, and it recently led to the revelations about cancer, he said.

Ebert started as the Sun-Times film critic on April 3, 1967, writing about 200 reviews each of those 46 years, he said. The last year however, was his most prolific.

"Last year, I wrote the most of my career, including 306 movie reviews, a blog post or two a week, and assorted other articles," he said. "I must slow down now, which is why I'm taking what I like to call 'a leave of presence.'"

Ebert: The critical critic

Ebert, who won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism in 1975, had a way with words and a sharp wit that is not easily matched.

-- About Rob Schneider's "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" in 2005: "If he's going to persist in making bad movies, he's going to -- have to grow accustomed to reading bad reviews."

-- Concerning Schneider's reaction to another critic who panned the film: "But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks."

-- Reviewing "Crocodile Dundee II": "I've seen audits that were more thrilling."

-- Giving no love to "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith": "To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion."

Ebert: The film philosopher

-- "Every great film should seem new every time you see it."

-- "No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."

-- "If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't."

-- "If a movie isn't a hit right out of the gate, they drop it. Which means that the whole mainstream Hollywood product has been skewed toward violence and vulgar teen comedy."

-- Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: "Our whole city learned with sadness today of the passing of Roger Ebert, whose name was synonymous with two things: the movies and Chicago. In a Pulitzer Prize winning career that spanned more than four decades, thousands of reviews and countless acts of generosity to others, Roger championed Chicago as a center for filmmaking and critiques. With a knowledge of his subject as deep as his love for his wife Chaz, Roger Ebert will be remembered for the strength of his work, respected for his courage in the face of illness, and revered for his contribution to filmmaking and to our city. The final reel of his life may have run through to the end, but his memory will never fade."

-- Sun-Times Media Editor in Chief Jim Kirk: "The long relationship between Roger and his Sun-Times family speaks volumes about Roger's commitment to his craft and to his fans around the world. Roger's reviews were highly anticipated by readers and the film community. Film commentary was only one of several gifts. He was a reporter first, in every aspect of his craft. He could write as eloquently about world affairs as he could on the upcoming blockbuster. Roger will be missed not only by the Sun-Times family, but by the journalism and film communities. Our thoughts are with Roger's wife, Chaz, and their family during this time."

I wasn't a fan of Fast and Furious series.
But I thought the last one, Fast and Furious 5, was very enjoyable. Even if you hadn't seen the earlier episodes. I might have seen one or two of the earlier episodes, but Fast and Furious 5 was really enjoyable: light and entertaining, easy to cheer for the good guys (who were criminals with hearts of gold). Even easy to cheer for the Rock, who was trying to put the heroes down, until he found a criminal who was just plain bad and evil.

----------------

Fast 5 was moderately entertaining, but the engineer in me just had a hard time with the driving around dragging a 5 ton safe/wrecking ball for 20 minutes bit. I know suspension of disbelief and all, but come on. Also, the mix of horrible actors/bad dialogue can get somewhat cringe inducing at times. Please, please no more Paul Walker, ever, anywhere.

Too bad about Ebert, the lady and I always enjoy his reviews, and our tastes and sensibilities were quite similar. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

I used to enjoy watching Siskel and Ebert, and sometimes found their reviews useful in picking out movies that I might like to see.

Since that time, since there are so many different reviews available on the Internet that you can find, I find reviews are very little help in whether I would enjoy watching a movie.

Like slutty wrote, I found the scene where they use a muscle car to drag a massive steel safe over roads at high speeds fairly unbelievable. I think I even mentioned that when I wrote earlier on this thread that Fast and Furious 5 was better than I was expecting.

But no one else mentioned how unbelievable it was to watch a muscle car racing around while dragging a steel safe weighing many tons.

I guess we're used to seeing fantastic elements in the movies, and accepting them. After all, how many times has James Bond killed 100s of enemies in his movies, and survived against impossible odds? That's part of what makes him the hero.

Now it's quite possible that the movie will make a profit but it won't be from domestic Box office so this won't be considered a true box office success by any stretch of the imgination. It got a 28% score on Rotten Tomatoes from critics and a 57% from regular viewers while the original had a 34% from critics and 64% from regular viewers.

I'd alo like to add that this sequel does not really star Channing or Bruce because one character basically dies in the beginning of the film and the other one is on screen for only a small part of the film. I believe that one of the main reasons why this film didn't get released last summer is because test audiences had a major issue with the way the character of Channing was killed off in the first minutes of the movie. They basically had to shoot some extra scenes of him bonding with Dwayne's character so that he would have more screen time. Why nother when you will kill him off anyway?

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:

Last week's winner, animated prehistoric adventure "The Croods," slipped to second place with $26.5 million in North America (the United States and Canada).

This one will definetely make a profit but again it's only because of Oversea box office takes. The movie has only made 125 millions in North America with a budget of 135 millions

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:

Another new release, sci-fi romantic thriller "The Host," finished in sixth place with $11 million. The movie is based on a novel by Stephenie Meyer, author of the "Twilight" vampire series that became a blockbuster movie franchise.

If they were hoping to catch fire in a bottle with another of Stephaine Meyer book then they have failed miserably because this movie will not make enough money to generate a sequel (Not sure if one was ever planned but seeing has this is Hollywood then they were thinking about it). It only got a 10% rating at Rotten Tomatoes from critics and 58% from regular viewers.

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:

In fourth place, thriller "Olympus Has Fallen" earned $14 million during its second weekend. The movie stars Gerard Butler and Morgan Freeman in the tale of a White House under attack. Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" came in fifth with $11.6 million.

This one is doomed to be a bomb. It had to make it's money from domestic box office because it's too USA centric to appeal to Oversea markets. Long live the Brown Coats.

It's not a happy ending for Warner Bros. as "Jack the Giant Slayer" is the latest reason why Hollywood should maybe reconsider this whole revisionist fairy tale thing.

"Jack" flopped, "Mirror Mirror" didn't exactly set the world on fire and Universal's "Snow White and the Huntsman" just barely made enough (overseas, at that) to warrant a sequel that seems more like a studio obligation than a response to audience enthusiasm. Maybe fairy tales aren't "the new comic book movie" after all?

This isn't a good example of why Hollywood shouldn't make any other fairy tale based movies because it was a very good movie but badly marketed. This movie should never have been marketed to children because the content was too intense for them and not enough for the teenagers which this movie was clearly meant for. I don't know if Singer shot some more intense scenes but I really hope he did and that we will see a directors version because that might be the one that should have mad it to the big screen.

Now Mirror Mirror and the other Snow White movie are far better examples of why Hollywood should stay away from doing fairy tales. This first one thinks that it should be a colorful comedy with some action sequences that were probably funnier on paper than on screen and the other one tried to make a Lord of The Ring movie but with Snow White as the main lead. It might have worked if they had picked a better actress than Kristen Stewart because she sinks the movie whenever she is on screen and if you are going to add a love interest then make sure they actually get together in this one and not in any possible sequel. Long live the Brown Coats.

I was hoping that The Host would do better.
Saoirse Ronan is a fine actress.
She was nominated for an Oscar for her role in Atonement when she was around 13.
I thought she was fantastic in Hanna.
But it takes more than just one good actress to make a successful movie. You also need a story, good writing, music, good photography, etc.

None of which were in the Twilight movies. Except maybe good photography.

^I also enjoy Saoirse as an actress and it's clearly not her lack of talent that sanked The Host because she is a super talented actress. I know because I own two of her movies. The above mentioned Hanna and City of Ember. The previous is an intriguing movie that could use a sequel to expand on her character but I much prefer City of Ember. There is very little not to like about that movie and the acting from all particpants is top notch.

I think one of the main issue's people have with The Host is that since Saoirse is playing two characters living in one body than all conversations between her two characters is essentially all internal but using her voice. That is not necessarily an issue when read in a novel but it must become quickly annoying when heard on screen because it's always the same voice doing all the talking. It's like hearing her arguing with herslef for two hours. It also can't help that the Stephanie Meyer novel's haven't being well translated to the big screen. The Twilight movies have made plenty of money but it's not because they are any good. I've seen all of them and they are pretty bad and worse diverge so much from the novels that they could be tagged as being based on the twilight novels in key areas. Long live the Brown Coats.

Long before Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, or Lindsay Lohan, Annette Funicello showed a young woman could graduate from Disney roles into grown-up stardom. And Funicello proved you could do it with your reputation and charm fully intact.

Annette Funicello, the star of "The Mickey Mouse Club" TV series from 1955 to 1957 who later went on to appear in several successful films for Disney and then hit the surf with Frankie Avalon in the popular "Beach Party" movies, died Monday after a long struggle with multiple sclerosis. Funicello was 70.

Born in Utica, New York on October 22, 1942, Annette Joanne Funicello spent most of her childhood in California, where her parents moved when she was four. Naturally shy, young Annette took singing and dancing lessons to gain confidence, and after she was spotted at a dance recital at age 12, Funicello was invited to audition for a new television show Walt Disney was producing featuring a handful of talented youngsters. Funicello became part of the original cast for "The Mickey Mouse Club," and soon was one of the favorite personalities on the show, receiving up to 6,000 fan letters a month.

During her three-year run on "The Mickey Mouse Club," Funicello was maturing from a pretty girl into a lovely woman, and Disney kept her under contract, casting her in more grown-up roles on various Disney-produced shows, including her own short-lived series, "Annette." In 1959, Funicello made her big screen debut in the comedy "The Shaggy Dog," and she appeared in a Disney adaptation of "Babes In Toyland" in 1961.

However, Funicello's film career really began to click in 1963, when Disney lent her out to American International Pictures for a high-spirited teen musical called "Beach Party." It was the first of seven "Beach" movies co-starring Funicello and Frankie Avalon, in which she invariably played the pretty but nice girl who, despite various romantic misunderstandings, always ended up with Frankie at the end. While the "Beach Party" movies certainly played up Funicello 's beauty and figure, she always maintained a relative modesty; under the advice of Walt Disney, she never appeared in a bikini, always wearing a less revealing one-piece suit.

Outside of the "Beach" films, Funicello maintained a busy schedule through the 1960s, appearing in youth-oriented comedies for Disney such as "The Misadventures of Merlin Jones" and "The Monkey's Uncle," as well as plenty of TV work. She also released a handful of records, and her tune "Jamaica Ska" would later become a cult favorite.

[Related: Annette Funicello Filmography]

In the 1970s, Funicello devoted less time to her career and spent more time with her family, raising three children with her first husband Jack Gilardi. In 1987, Annette and Frankie Avalon reunited for the movie "Back To The Beach," in which they played a middle aged couple whose kids were going through misadventures of their own; it included Annette doing a new version of "Jamaica Ska" with the punk-funk-ska band Fishbone.

While doing promotional appearances for "Back To The Beach," Annette began experiencing dizzy spells, and in 1992, she announced she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. After slipping into a coma recently, Funicello passed away in Bakersfield, California while surrounded by her husband, Glen Holt, and her three children.

I saw Hitchcock, the movie with Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. It's out on DVD at Redbox for $1.20 (plus tax).

The movie shows Hitchcock as a man with issues, but he was also a genius who created some great, entertaining movies. He also had a deep respect for his wife, and the dynamic of their relationship could be rocky, but they had an enduring partnership.

I highly recommend the movie.

I tried watching the movie about Hitchcock with Toby Jones, called The Girl, but couldn't finish it. I thought it was too much of a hatchet job on Hitchcock. Hitchcock might have had personal problems, but that is true of many actors and directors. The sense that I got from the Toby Jones movie was that Hitchock was a creep, which I think is too one-sided and diminishes Hitchcock's contributions too much.

Helen Mirren gives a great performance as Hitchcock's wife. Made me really appreciate the skill and determination and perseverance and intelligence and loyalty of the real Alma Reville (Hitchcock's wife).

"Star Trek Into Darkness," director J.J. Abrams' sequel to his much-beloved 2009 reboot of the long-running sci-fi franchise, has been voted the second most anticipated movie of the summer, according to a Fandango poll (the first being, of course, "Iron Man 3"). The film will make its UK debut on May 9, a full six days before the U.S. IMAX release, and advance tickets are now available for purchase.

Well, they were, anyway -- until overwhelming demand crashed the IMAX website, kind of like the way the Enterprise crashes into San Francisco Bay.

Advance tickets for UK IMAX screenings went on sale on Tuesday, April 9, and the IMAX site soon went offline due to having over ten times more traffic than usual. You'd think the IMAX webmasters would've learned something from last summer's "The Dark Knight Rises," which inspired an enormous increase in traffic when advance tickets went on sale that caused the Sydney and Melbourne sites to crash. But no -- Scotty gave it all she's got and the UK site went dark.

"Due to overwhelming demand for Star Trek IMAX online booking is currently down," tweeted the British Film Institute (BFI). "We're doing all we can to rectify. Do bear with us."

Even Paramount Pictures UK stepped in to try to contain the crisis:

"To book @BFI @IMAX tickets for #StarTrek #IntoDarkness call 0330 333 7878, while their online booking is down due to overwhelming demand."

The site has since been rebooted and ticket sales have re-commenced.

Abrams and Paramount have been criticized for taking four years to get a new "Star Trek" movie into theaters following the enormous success of the 2009 film, which grossed over $385 million in worldwide box office. It appears that audience enthusiasm hasn't diminished at all in that length of time, and in fact seems to have increased -- there's talk that "Star Trek Into Darkness" could surpass its predecessor by a light year and go on to make over $1 billion worldwide. Audience interest has also increased due to Abrams being announced as the director of the upcoming "Star Wars: Episode VII."

"Star Trek Into Darkness" will open in IMAX in the U.S. on May 15, with advance tickets now on sale. Try not to crash any sites, would ya?

Even if you've never seen an episode of the old TV show, there are still three things you surely know about the Lone Ranger: he wears a mask, he has a best friend named Tonto, and he carries silver bullets.

The reasons behind the first two are obvious: he wears a mask to obscure his identity, and his trusted pal Tonto is a skilled scout and valuable resource. But why on earth would someone cast bullets out of silver?

Well, the upcoming big-budget movie version of "The Lone Ranger" has an explanation that is slightly different than the one from the character's origins. Check out the film's exclusive final trailer, premiering right here on Yahoo! Movies, and keep reading to learn why the Western icon needs such precious ammunition.

Originally created for the radio in 1933, the Lone Ranger became a phenomenon on TV in the series that begin in 1949. As envisioned by creators Fran Striker and George W. Trendle, the Ranger lived by the highest moral standards, and he was distinct from other Western heroes in that he only ever shot to disarm, not to kill. That's where the silver bullets came in. As a symbol of purity, using silver was a reminder of the high cost that came with firing a gun. (The guy is so obsessed with the stuff he even named his horse "Silver.")

For the new movie, the characters of both the Lone Ranger and Tonto have expanded backstories, and it offers a new rationale for the silver bullets. In this story, John Reid (played by Armie Hammer) is actually a lawyer who returns to his dusty hometown to take the job of county prosecutor. He believes in by-the-book law and order, which puts him at odds with his older brother Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), who is a tough Texas Ranger like their father was.

After John witnesses the escape of the wanted criminal Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), he volunteers to join Dan and his band of Rangers to hunt down Cavendish. But they are ambushed by the gang and everyone but John is killed.

As it happens, though, someone else is after Cavendish: the Comanche scout Tonto (Johnny Depp). He rescues John and nurses him back to health, believing he is a great warrior sent to help him. Since Cavendish believes John died with his brother, Tonto suggests he wear a mask to hide his identity (and protect Dan's widow Rebecca, who John also loves).

For Tonto, Cavendish is more than just a villain, he's a powerful evil presence. Tonto believes he is a "Wendigo," which is a cannibalistic demon in some Native American legends that can transform into or possess the body of a human. Tonto tells John Reid that being a Wendigo, Cavendish cannot be killed by normal means. Like other creatures in mythology — werewolves and vampires, for example — the purity of silver can break the evil magic, so Tonto gives the Ranger a single silver bullet. He'll only have one shot at ridding the West of this dangerous, and maybe even supernatural, criminal.

Of course, getting to Cavendish is going to be its own adventure, filled with fist-fights, horse chases, and train wrecks. And since this new film is from the writers, producer, and director of the original "Pirates of the Caribbean," you know it's going to be an epic ride.

Ah man, I always thought it was cause he was on the lookout for a werewolf! Morality is so less cool... Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

^Every trailer I've seen so far seem to point to Tonto as having a bigger role than the Lone Ranger and frankly that makes absolutely no sense to me. I know that Johnny Depp is the bigger star out of him and Armie but he isn't the one I'm going to fork my money to see. Four Pirates of the Carribean movies and a stint as Barnabas Collins in the recent Dark Shadow novie have kind of soured me toward Depp and his weird characters.

I'm not crossing off this movie just yet but if most of the reviews point toward him being the star then I won't go see the movie in a theater. Long live the Brown Coats.

In this Lone Ranger re-make, Tonto seems to be the cool guy, or the weird one. In the TV series, Tonto was not weird or cool, just a faithful servant of the Long Ranger.

Perhaps they had to make him weird for Depp to do it, he does seem to have a preference for those types of roles, the only sort of normal role I can remember him playing in like the past decade was that movie with Jolie in Venice. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars.
Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited.

Iron Man 3 opened yesterday, and no one has reported it here at PU. This is one of the biggest movies (in terms of box office) of the year.

But the truth is, there can be a wide disconnect, between box-office success and my own personal enjoyment. And the same holds true for Oscar success. There are many movies that have won an Oscar, that I did not enjoy watching.

I liked Iron Man 1. Did not enjoy Iron Man 2 as much. Tony Stark and Pepper Potts were falling in love in Iron Man 1. But in Iron Man 2, they didn't build from Iron Man 1, but seemed to start from the beginning again.

Now, in Iron Man 3, from the previews, Tony Stark says that Pepper Potts is the girl he loves.

So in Comic book rules or history, you don't build on what went before. Each new episode is a fresh start. You love somebody, then you like somebody, then you are madly in love, whatever. No continuity.

Of course, you have to adapt to changing times.

Supoerman, when I read him in the comics back in the 1950s and 1960s, would maybe kiss Lois Lane, but that was as far as it went.

But then I saw a Superman movie, and it turns out that Lois Lane had a baby. And in the course of the movie, she tells Superman that the baby is his.

So I guess that Superman and Lois Lane did more than just kiss.

Unless it was the Immaculate Conception, where a kiss was all that was needed, to make a baby.

Edit01:
I believe the movie where Lois Lane has a baby, and it's revealed that Superman is the father, is Superman Returns (2006), the Bryan Singer reboot.

Edit02:
In the movie, Superman's son is not a baby, but a young boy. The actor who played the boy was around 5 years old, I believe.
----------------
----------------

Forecast: 'Iron Man 3' in Line for One of the Biggest Openings Ever
by Ray Subers
Iron Man 3

May 2, 2013

Friday A.M. Update: Disney is reporting that Iron Man 3 earned $15.6 million from Thursday evening shows in the U.S. That's a bit lower than the midnight opening for The Avengers last year ($18.7 million). This essentially ensures that Iron Man 3 won't match The Avengers for the weekend, considering it's much easier to fill seats at 9 p.m. than at midnight. Still, the movie remains on pace for at least $150 million by the end of the weekend.

The Summer movie season officially begins this weekend with Iron Man 3, which should leverage goodwill from The Avengers to generate one of the biggest opening weekends ever.

Opening at 4,253 locations, Iron Man 3 is the seventh movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first one in what's being referred to as "Phase 2" (the post-Avengers era). "Phase 1" kicked off with the first Iron Man, which surprised many when it earned $318.4 million in Summer 2008. The sequel, 2010's Iron Man 2, grossed nearly as much ($312.4 million), but was mostly considered a creative disappointment. All the other "Phase 1" movies�The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger�earned less than $200 million domestically, which confirms that Iron Man is by-far the favorite character among The Avengers crew.

With very few exceptions, the third entry in an ongoing franchise winds up grossing less than its predecessor, no matter how well-liked the predecessor was (The Dark Knight Rises is a strong recent example of this trend). That probably won't be the case with Iron Man 3, though, because it's being perceived as a follow-up to The Avengers, not to Iron Man 2. That movie exceeded even the most outlandish expectations when it set the opening weekend record at this time last year with $207.4 million. It went on to earn over $623 million domestically and over $1.5 billion worldwide, making it the third-highest-grossing movie ever behind Avatar and Titanic.

Not content to merely cruise on positive vibes from The Avengers, Disney's marketing for Iron Man 3 has been aggressive and impressive. Previews manage to heighten the personal drama for Tony Stark while at the same time showcasing some awesome action; in particular, the destruction of Tony Stark's Malibu home has been a highlight of the campaign. It's also emphasized the conflict with villain The Mandarin, and teased a climactic battle that features an army of Iron Man suits (which does unfortunately call to mind the ending of Iron Man 2). All of this has added up to intense levels of anticipation: the movie currently accounts for 93 percent of sales on Fandango and 91 percent of sales on MovieTickets.com.

Iron Man 3 has already opened throughout most overseas markets, and remarkably has performed about in line with The Avengers so far. In some critical areas, it's actually playing better than The Avengers: with tons of support from the Chinese government, the movie set a new opening day record there with $21.5 million on Wednesday. The movie has already earned over $300 million overseas, and should be over $450 million by the end of the weekend.

While this incredible foreign performance bodes well for its domestic debut, it would be hasty to assume Iron Man 3 can also match The Avengers here. The Avengers was a unique movie-going event unlike anything that had come before, while Iron Man 3's smaller scale puts it at an inherent disadvantage. Still, with a massive marketing push and zero competition, there's a legitimate change that Iron Man 3 tops Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 ($169.2 million) to claim the second-highest opening ever.

Bar for Success
Coming off The Avengers and with the addition of 3D ticket pricing to the franchise, Iron Man 3 needs to open noticeably higher than Iron Man 2 ($128.1 million). Anything above $150 million should be considered a major success. Edited on May 03, 2013, 05:33pm

Iron Man 3 was a fun popcorn movie, though I was full from lunch and didn't eat any. Robert Downey Jr makes the Iron Man movies as good as they are. I'm glad he was able to kick his drug problem before he was found dead in some shitty hotel room and now gets to enjoy his life and make a whole lot of money that doesn't wind up up his nose or in his arm.

I saw Iron Man 3 this afternoon and it was okay but more on this lower. First my opinion of the movie seems to be in the vast minority because it has already made over 175 millions in North America and over 500,ooo in the rest of the world it's a definite box office hit.

Now as to why I said the movie is just okay. There are going to be some major spoilers in what I'm writing so do not read further if you want to go into the movie fresh.

1-We are introduced to two semi-important characters in the first few minutes of the movie but frankly I don't know why since they aren't really important to the story.

2-We are told that Tony suffers from the after effects of his fight in the Avengers but except for one more or less major episode. The guy looks about the same as he always does and his way of getting better makes absolutely no sense.

3-The main bad guy turns out to be a puppet of the real bad guy and one that we are supposed to laugh at when he's revealed to be a simple drug addicted Shakespearean actor
who was blackmailed into playing the role of The Mandarin but is not aware of all the bad things being done in is name. It's bad enough that the only thing this Mandarin has in common with his comic book counterpart is the name but at least he should have been the actual bad guy.

4-Tony and Pepper are super human because they survive not one but two seperate missiles blowing up less than 20 feet from them all the while these same missiles are able to destroy Tony's California mansion.

5-There are soooo many different characters each with some dialogue that I felt like I needed a pad and paper to keep track of who they were and what role they were playing. It didn't help that they were on screen for less than a couple of minutes before dying or not be seen again.

6-There are so many new armors that I could have used my above note pad to keep track of them but like the human characters. They aren't on screen for long and they don't survive.

7-Last but not least. Can anyone who has seen the movie explain what the movie was about. Other than dialogue and explosions and pretty much allowing the possibility of a new Iron Man. I still don't know what it was about. Long live the Brown Coats.

7-Last but not least. Can anyone who has seen the movie explain what the movie was about. Other than dialogue and explosions and pretty much allowing the possibility of a new Iron Man. I still don't know what it was about.

I haven't seen Iron Man 3 yet, will probably wait for the DVD or cable.

But I can easily explain what the movie was about: Making money, gobs and gobs of it.

^ Going this morning to see IM3 but I don't think you gave any spoilers Pat. In keeping with comix books, do any of them actually have plots? Bad guy shows up, you get blown up, you get up and whoop ass. Basic hero comix book plot.

I'm just going for the shock and awe. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat,get your fucking hand off her throat!

^ that's entertainment! What was Iron Man 3 about? It was about watching Robert Downey Jr have fun playing Iron Man - and doing it well. Then there was a bunch of action stuff going on. Period.

I'm glad he had fun because I certainly didn't. At least I can answer my question in regards to whether RDJ is back or not. The answer is that he doesn't have to be back and they can choose another person to wear the armor since he is no longer capable of powering the armor. Mind you that is something I never actually thought about until now.

Since Tony's chest reactor is the power source for all the Iron Man suits then how is it that Rhodey was able to even steal War Machine or let alone use after that? They went out of their way to show us that the Arc Reactor in Tony's chest was the power source for the Iron man suit and then they discard that so that the story can move along and they go even further in Iron man 3 and now have all self powered armors. Long live the Brown Coats.

When I was in high school, I was taught that fiction is supposed to have internal consistency.

That was many years ago.

Since then, movies and comic books have evolved, to where internal consistency seems to be ignored at will. That is especially true in comic book and fantasy/sci-fi.

I can't speak with any firsthand knowledge on comics books because it has been many years since I read one but is it possible that the internal consistency has less to do with the comic themselves and more because each new writter wants to put his stamp on a specific character and that's why there is no consistency.

I know a lot about movies and I tend to pay attention to those inconsistencies and that's why a movie that breaks it's on rules drives me nuts and always takes me out of the enjoyment. Long live the Brown Coats.

Robert Downey says he's interested in making Iron Man 4. But "he's told the press more than once he wants to re-negotiate. Downey presumably wants a larger cut of the action, not surprising since "Iron Man 3" has already earned a word wide gross of over $680 million. But as Marvel has earned a reputation for being tight with a dollar when it comes to actor's salaries, so it's an open question how much they'll pay to keep the actor who has become synonymous with one of their most profitable characters."

I read a while back that Downey was the highest paid actor in the Avengers. He was paid at least $50 million for that movie. With some sources saying his paycheck could have hit $70-$80 million from his cut on DVD and cable and whatever other profits he's entitled to.

None of the other actors in the Avengers got anywhere near Downey's pay.

ABCDo you want to see "Iron Man 4" some day? If so, Robert Downey Jr. wants you to pony up.

Well, not really, but Downey had some fun with the looming question of whether or not he'll be returning as Tony Stark when he appeared on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Tuesday night, suggesting he might be crowdsourcing the next installment in the "Iron Man" franchise.

After talking about Downey's recent international press tour for "Iron Man 4" and showing pics of him eating unusual food in China and wearing lederhosen in Germany, Kimmel asked Downey, who was in typically charming but wise-ass form, about the future of the "Iron Man" franchise. At first, Downey gave what seemed like a serious answer.

"The funny thing is, you have this kind of weekend, and then instantly Monday morning, you think there's going to be the next announcement," Downey said. "But you know the economy really is weird, and I was thinking if we were going to do another one, maybe we would tentatively call it 'Iron Man 4' …"

"Oh, that's a good idea! I love that title, I really do like it," Kimmel interjected.

"Yeah, it seems like a logical progression," Downey replied. He continued, "But I wasn't getting a lot of support, so I decided, my buddies told me there's a Kickstarter thing. So as of now, yeah, if you want to see a sequel, please go to Kickstarter.com and put in your vote."

The camera then cut to a screen grab of a mock Kickstarter page headlined "The Iron Man Fund," with a $200 million goal and the sub-headline "You can never have too many Iron Men." "Every little bit helps!" Downey shouted just before Kimmel went to commercial.

The good news is, when Kimmel and Downey returned a few minutes later, they gave fans a status update on the fake funding drive. The second screen shot of the Kickstarter page revealed 800,127 backers had pledged $1.8 billion (with a B) so far, which would be what they call "fully funded."

In between jokes, Downey did offer a few less comical hints about his future as Tony Stark. He spoke with admiration at how Marvel Studios had handled the series, saying, "Particularly with these superhero movies, I realized pretty early on that the audience really drives the success of the movies. That's what we've been kind of chasing, and I think Marvel's been really smart. They really include what the folks at Comic-Con think, who's really excited about this casting announcement. I think it's also really the birth of interactive entertainment in big-scale movies."

And when Kimmel directly asked if Downey would make another "Iron Man" movie, the actor was unambiguous. "Yeah, it's been one of the best things in my life professionally and people really like it …" Downey said.

Kimmel cut in, saying, "I think you should just beat it to death! Just 'til everyone is just sick of it! Keep going! I'd never take that Iron Man costume off. They'd bury me in it. That's how I’d go out."

Downey's comments on Marvel and the franchise come at an interesting time for the major players concerned: Downey's contract with Marvel is up, and he's told the press more than once he wants to re-negotiate. Downey presumably wants a larger cut of the action, not surprising since "Iron Man 3" has already earned a word wide gross of over $680 million. But as Marvel has earned a reputation for being tight with a dollar when it comes to actor's salaries, so it's an open question how much they'll pay to keep the actor who has become synonymous with one of their most profitable characters.

Whatever happens, Downey might just want to chat with Rob Thomas and Zach Braff about Kickstarter, just in case.

Superman is called the Man of Steel. Is he really made of steel? If so, I'd venture to say he gives the the word "hard-on" a whole new meaning.
Can we call his reported son "The boy of steel"?
If so, you gonna know ain't no school ground bully is gonna mess around with this little dynano.

Considering the fact Superman's genitals and baby-making equipment ain't in sync with us earthly weaklings, and taking into account his sperm cells might exit during ejaculation -- liken to swarms of steel pellets flying around "faster than a speeding bullet" -- engenders asking if all this wouldn't complicate things for Lois Lane during and after her conceptual love-making with the guy? I mean, among other things, the guy never removes his red tights. Further, I don't ever recall seeing a "fly" built into the damn thing.
Does he ever have that weird outfit cleaned? If so, where and what does he wear in the meantime? And what if he's called upon, while his uniform's at the cleaners, to go after some bad guys who're up to mischief?
Ever wonder where he disrobes when a phone booth ain't around? And what happens to his Clark Kent regalia while he's out fighting crime? And if he's so damned fast, why don't he just hightail it home where leaving his business suit is safe?

If you haven't (in a fit of boredom) already abandoned this uninvited treatise relating to this thread.... let me just say the Aforementioned are just trivial (tongue in cheek) thoughts concerning Superman's character about which I'm hopeful you'll find some measure of humor.

This is a kung fu movie with comic book elements, that's very different from your average kung fu movie.

It takes a little getting used to the way the movie is shown: you get flashbacks, the real names of the actors flashing across the screen when they make their first appearance, with a snippet of what they are famous for, lots and lots of asian stars in this movie, lots of kung fu fighting (with some wire-work), some plot about a hero looking to become a kung-fu master, a lovely young Chinese girl who fights with the hero, some romantic heartbreak, and (spoiler alert), the lovely young Chinese girl is going to marry the hero at the end of the movie. And there are villains in the movie, of course.

Why is he called Spider Man? Isn't he still supposed to be a teenager? If he's a teenager, shouldn't he called Spider Boy?

In the film with Tobey Maguire that came out in 2002, Spider Man was a high school student. So unless he had flunked a few grades, he was still a teen-ager. (Tobey Maguire was in his late twenties, playing a teen-ager.)

So as someone who believes in Truth in Advertising, shouldn't he called Spider Boy, instead of Spider Man?

One of Spider-Man's most famous villains (or at least, according to writer Mike Conroy, one of his dimmest) is making his live-action feature debut in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," and some new set photos offer the first look at the "Sideways" star as Aleksei Mikhailovich Sytsevich, aka the Rhino.

Sytsevich, a Silver Age character created by writer Stan Lee and artist John Romita, Sr., made his comics debut in "The Amazing Spider-Man" #41 (Oct. 1966). A thug-for-hire for an Eastern Bloc country, Sytsevich volunteered to be the test subject in an experiment (you see where this is going, right?) that bonded a super-strong polymer to his skin, which also increased his strength and speed ... and subsequently inspired him to ram his head through walls. The Rhino was killed off in "Hulk" Vol. 2, #104 (June 196, though his popularity earned him a resurrection, from which he went on to be a frequently-appearing character in the adventures of both Hulk and Spider-Man.

Gamers will also remember the Rhino as a particularly difficult (and extremely loud) foe to defeat in Activision's "Ultimate Spider-Man" (2005), one of the villain's many video game appearances.

The set pics feature Paul Giamatti without his, uh, Rhino-skin, sporting instead a black and white Adidas sweat jacket, plenty of gold bling around his neck and lots of tattoos on his forehead, chest and forearms, which probably denote some sort of gang affiliation (or were acquired while doing some hard time). As he faces off with the wall-crawler, Giamatti's Sytsevich is also behind the wheel of a semi truck -- certainly an effective tool to implement in crashing through walls if one doesn't have his Rhino-head yet.

Plot details of "The Amazing-Spider-Man 2" have been kept under wraps, so it's unknown as to how the Rhino fits into this new adventure. We do know, however, that he's just one of several villains in the sequel, as Jamie Foxx is headlining the show as Max Dillon/Electro and Chris Cooper will be following in Willem Dafoe's footsteps as Norman Osborn, who's destined to become the Green Goblin at some point. Dane DeHaan is also appearing as Harry Osborn, though we assume that he'll be in "friend" mode to Peter Parker for at least the majority of the film's running time.

I've disliked all of the Spider Man movies - way too much CGI, which makes them look too much like old Saturday morning cartoons - not compelling in any way shape or form.

James Cameron's Avatar had much more thrilling flying scenes than any of the Spider Man movies had and the Iron Man movies have done a much better job at maintaining the illusion that the character was participating in the action scenes than any of the Spider Man movies have.

None of them have been very good and I don't expect this upcoming one to be any better. I'll do what I have with the others - watch it on cable, so I won't mind so much when I get bored within a half hour and stop watching the damned thing entirely.

Plot details of "The Amazing-Spider-Man 2" have been kept under wraps, so it's unknown as to how the Rhino fits into this new adventure. We do know, however, that he's just one of several villains in the sequel, as Jamie Foxx is headlining the show as Max Dillon/Electro and Chris Cooper will be following in Willem Dafoe's footsteps as Norman Osborn, who's destined to become the Green Goblin at some point. Dane DeHaan is also appearing as Harry Osborn, though we assume that he'll be in "friend" mode to Peter Parker for at least the majority of the film's running time.

You'd think that a studio would at least learn from a past mistake. Especillay when it was only 6 years ago that they made it but as I can see they haven't done so. At least with the Raimi franchise. It took until the third movie for the Spider Man franchise to derail but it looks like studio wants it to happen a lot faster. I think the biggest complaint people had with Raimi's third movie was that there were too many bad guys. The first two movies were great because we actually got to learn some important information about the bad guys. It's a two hour movie so how much time can they actually dedicate to each bad guy and still show some Spider-Man.

I didn't see the most recent incarnation of Spider-Man and i guess I won't be seeing this one either. Long live the Brown Coats.

I watched the new Star Trek movie this afternoon and it's good. Not great but then again I'm not as big a fan as others with the way the franchise is going. I'm an old schoold Star Trek fan so although I can appreciate these new movies. They all pale when compared to the original cast and stories.

The movie is flashy and the effects are good. There are plot holes so big that you can fly the Enterprise through them but that's been the theme with the J.J Abrams movies since the first one. My suggestion is that you don't think too much about plot or story.

My only warning is that you should avoid watching this in 3D. So much of the action happens in darker locations and 3D tends to make things even darker that you may miss some thing happening on screen. There's also the affinity of so many of todays directors to shoot action sequences in high speed that the eye can't keep track of who's fighting who and what's happening.

**Spoilers***
Do not read below this if you want to go in to the movie with little if any knoowledge.

This is basically a modified version of the Wrath of Khan with a similar ending except with a (sadly stupid) twist. Long live the Brown Coats.

I was a fan of the original Star Trek series when it was on TV back in the 1960s.

But since then, I've read, from several sources, that william Shatner had a massive ego and he thought the show revolved around him, and some of his fellow castmates had a problem relating to him in real life.

I guess there are a number of actors who have an enlarged ego.

It shouldn't affect the way I think of the show, but it soured me on the show, in later years.

I never got into the later TV editions of Star Trek, with Patrick Stewart and the others. Or the Star Trek movies.

^I also heard the same thing and maybe it's true but I suspect that if we were to dig deep enough then we would discover that he and most of the other cast members all had egos. His was just the biggest one. Mind you he was the primary star of the show in as much as he was always the main character in each and every episode(more or less). Long live the Brown Coats.

I read today where they are planning on how to replace Robert Downey in future episodes of this franchise.

He himself has hinted that he'd like to do other things and that is quite hard when he has to shoot for new Iron man movies and the Avenger as well. I think that if they want to go the route of a different actor then simply replace him without doing a full reboot like they did for Spider-Man Long live the Brown Coats.

I've read that the new Superman is a tortured soul, who realizes he is different from normal human beings.

Does that mean he will get a lobotomy, as Zach Snyder did to his heroine in Sucker Punch?

How else would Superman gain release from his doubts, his insecurities?

Evedently Zach Snyder never read this quote from Norbert Weiner:
In 1948, Norbert Wiener, the father of Cybernetics, said: "...prefrontal lobotomy ...has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier." Edited on May 26, 2013, 02:40am

He himself has hinted that he'd like to do other things and that is quite hard when he has to shoot for new Iron man movies and the Avenger as well. I think that if they want to go the route of a different actor then simply replace him without doing a full reboot like they did for Spider-Man

While I am unable to revisit the story where I read this information, I did not get the feeling they would be doing a reboot but rather a continuation replacement through the story line. While Iron Man is about Tony Stark, it really is about the suit. And as we saw in the last episode, you don't even need a person inside to run things.

On that note, I did think the suit fireworks at the end of the movie a bit lame. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat,get your fucking hand off her throat!

I've read that the new Superman is a tortured soul, who realizes he is different from normal human beings.

Does that mean he will get a lobotomy, as Zach Snyder did to his heroine in Sucker Punch?

I've seen every trailer that's been released and the more I see the less I'm sure of what the final product is about. I did read a rumor that Krypton has not been destroyed in this version and that the main reason why General Zod comes to Earth is because Kal-El(Superman) is different from other Kryptonian and that's why is father sent him to Earth.

It's a visually gorgeous movie but the same could have been said of Sucker Punch so hopefully it's not a cluster fuck mess like SP. Long live the Brown Coats.

I did not get the feeling they would be doing a reboot but rather a continuation replacement through the story line.

I hope they don't attempt a reboot because that would be a monumentally dumb thing to do. Case in point the recent Spider-Man reboot which I thought was dumber than dumb. Of course doing dumb things as never stopped Hollywood and even less todays Hollywood. That said. I also get the feeling that they wouldn't go the reboot route. I'd rather they just picked another actor to play the part of Tony Stark and go from there. Better that than get a brand new actor to play a completely different character because we have already spent 3 movies establishing that Tony is a super genius who is the only person capable of making these types of suits.

Originally Posted by jberryl69:

On that note, I did think the suit fireworks at the end of the movie a bit lame.

I don't want to list all the things that were lame in this movie because it will only fuel my dislike for it even more. Let's just say that the exploding Iron Man suits that generated fireworks was so stupid that I think most people lost a couple of IQ points while watching the scene. Long live the Brown Coats.

I also liked the new Star Trek movie. Specifically the action was good, but it had a weak plot and nothing resembling acting. I saw it in 3D and I agree with Pat that sometimes I couldn't follow the action. I think that what caused that problem is that it was just too fast paced. I like effects, but felt like I was on overload towards the end. Also, it seemed that it needed a bit more explanation. A good example is the use of augments. If you did not see or remember the plot of The Wrath of Khan it made little sense. Still it was fun, but by no means a great movie.

^I think that all studios shooting movies where so much of the action is in low light should avoid doing them in 3D. Too much of the action is simply impossible to see and please do not shoot the action in such a way that you don't know who's who. That was evident in the Klingon scene.

I enjoy the new Star Trek movies but the writing is at best poor and in my opinion horrid. The first movie had so many things wrong with it that I was hoping they would fix them with the second installment but instead they just made it worse. This is basically the same story as the first one. You have Kirk who`s cocky and needs to mature, Spock who needs to get in touch with his emotions, a gigantic ship capable of destroying the Enterprise, an enemy out to get revenge on the Federation, a scene involving Kirk flying through space, problems with the transporter, problems with the warp core, countless deaths due to large sections of the ship being ripped out, the shields being useless.

The ending of the movie made no sense at all. Why would the youngest captain in Starfleet be making a speech in front of members of Starfleet. Yes Kirk will be one of the greatest captains in Starfleet history but this is not him yet. We aren`t suppose to know that because this is a new timeline and the guys is still in his 20's.

P.S: Can someone tell me why their was a gratuitous semi-nude scene in the movie? I like Alice Eve but why was she changing clothes in a shuttle and why did we have to see this? Long live the Brown Coats.

Abdellatif Kechiche's teen-lesbian coming-of-age story "Blue Is the Warmest Color" has won the 2013 Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

Based on the graphic novel "Le Bleu est une couleur chaude" became one of the biggest critical hits of Cannes.

It drew attention because of its graphic and extended sex scenes between its unknown lead actress, Adele Exarchopoulos, and Lea Seydoux. It is both the most sexually explicit Palme winner and the first gay-themed love story to win.

Pornly Over Exposed - Irina Shayk

Exit view of Irina Shayk:

Just because it's Jennifer and she was there though not like this!

If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat,get your fucking hand off her throat!Edited on May 27, 2013, 04:00am

P.S: Can someone tell me why their was a gratuitous semi-nude scene in the movie? I like Alice Eve but why was she changing clothes in a shuttle and why did we have to see this?

Alice Eve is a lovely young woman. If she is semi-nude, I would not call that gratuitous, but an essential moment in any movie I would watch.

I am not planning on seeing Star Trek in the movies. But I am now looking forward to seeing it on DVD. And will freeze-frame the section on her changing clothes in the shuttle, to see if there are any vicious alien creatures trying to grope Alice Eve's lovely body. Edited by Staff on May 27, 2013, 07:12am (Khan: fixed quoteback)

Protecting MinorsWe are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.